Extra Protein = Only Marginal Extra-Gains, No Special Effect on Muscle Architecture | Plus: Blend Beats Whey, Again

No, the message of this article is not that protein shakes don't work. It is that your (hopefully) tasty 20g of serving of whey is not going to build slabs of extra muscle.

You all know studies which show that protein supplementation during resistance exercise training enhances muscle hypertrophy. As a SuppVersity reader, you will yet also be aware of the numerous studies which indicate that extra-protein (before or after workouts) can be wasted if the baseline protein intake of the subjects amounts to 1.2-1.5g/kg protein, already (cf Table 1).

For some of you, this is yet probably not the only surprise this article holds. The large-scale clinical trial by Reidy, et al. did after all also confirm that protein blends may yield slightly better results than everyone's beloved whey protein.

High-protein diets are much safer than some 'experts' say, but there are things to consider...

Practical Protein Oxidation 101

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

Native Whey = Extra Gainz?

Satiety: Casein > Whey? Wrong!

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

High Protein not a Health Threat

In their large-scale clinical trial (cf. Reidy 2016a,b), the scientists from Texas broadened the scope of their analysis of the effects of a 12-week resistance training program from mere changes in body composition to measures of individual and myofiber-specific cross-sectional area increases, satellite cell numbers and the extent to which the muscle domains multiplied by myonuclear addition (that's important for continuous gains).

Figure 1: CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) diagram of study recruitment, enrollment, randomization follow-up, and analysis (from Reidy 2016b).

To this ends, Reidy et al. recruited 70 subjects (of which 58 completed the study;  the participants were healthy and recreationally active but were not engaged in any regular exercise-training program in form of <2 sessions high-intensity aerobic or resistance exercise/wk at the time of enrollment) who participated in a supervised whole body progressive resistance training program thrice a week for 12 weeks. With a habitual protein intake of ~1.3g/kg body weight, all subjects were "in the zone", i.e. within the perimeter of which previous studies show that it's enough to reduce, if not nullify the benefits of post-workout protein supplementation.

Figure 2: Schematic of the resistance exercise training protocol (Reidy. 2016b)

All subjects underwent the same standardized resistance training program (see Figure 2): All exercise training sessions were performed under supervision and on non-consecutive days, 3 times weekly, with 4 rest days per week.

"RET was performed at an intensity of 60-80% of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) and consisted of 3-4 sets of 8-10 repetitions performed to technical failure during the last set for each exercise.  In week 1, 3 sessions were conducted at 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 60% 1-RM.  In weeks 1-8, 2 sessions per week were performed at an intensity of 70% 1-RM, where 3 sets of 10 repetitions were the last set was performed to momentary muscular failure.  Each session consisted of whole body resistance exercise that lasted ~60-70 min. To reduce the risk of injury and overtraining, one additional training session per week was conducted at 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 60% 1RM with the goal of not reaching momentary muscular failure.  These sessions took place immediately before and after the 1-RM training days.  In weeks 9-12, 2 sessions per week were performed at an intensity of 80% 1-RM, where 4 sets of 8 repetitions were performed to momentary muscular failure. The 3rd session was performed at an intensity of 60% 1-RM as indicated earlier.   Each session consisted of whole body resistance exercise that lasted ~70-90 min. Resistance exercises included flat and incline chest press; leg press, curl and extension; seated pull-downs and rows; calf raises; and abdominal exercises.  Participants rested for 1-2 minutes between exercises and individuals sets.  1-RM was directly tested on the chest press, leg press and knee extension" (Reidy 2016b).  

Participants were allowed to maintain their recreational physical activity but instructed not to do any other strength training outside of the study. To allow for unforeseen life events, participants were given 13 weeks following the familiarization period to complete 36 exercise sessions. This allowed for 100% exercise compliance.

Table 1: Summary of all protein supplement studies with a placebo group directly assessing muscle mass during RET in young adults (Reidy 2017).

Are DXA-measured lean mass gains in this and other studies misleading? As Reidy et al. point out in the discussion of the results, you'd need ~62 to ~140 participants "to find a statistical effect of protein supplementation on whole body lean mass or fat-free mass" - most of the existing trials don't have that many subjects (cf. Reidy 2016a,b). In addition, Reidy's very own study shows that despite an (almost) statistically significant increase in lean mass, an increase in local muscle hypertrophy, as measured by ultrasound in the legs, could not be established. In fact, the increase in lean mass the DEXA scan detected could have occurred everywhere and it's by no means certain that it took place in those areas of the upper body and arms where you want your gains to become visible.

On top of their habitually "high" protein intake (101-108g/day and 102-113g/day in the protein blend and whey group, respectively), all subjects were randomized to receive either one out of two daily 22g protein supplements containing ...

• a soy-dairy protein blend (PB, N=22) - 25% soy protein isolate, 25% whey protein isolate, and 50% sodium caseinate,2.00 g leucine from the three protein sources
• a whey protein isolate (WP, N=15) - 100% whey protein isolate, 2.31g leucine from whey 

... or an isocaloric maltodextrin and otherwise identical placebo (MDP, N=17) supplement. In view of the results, it may be worth noting that this left the subjects in the placebo group (MDP), who also had the lowest dietary protein intake (95g/day), with ~30g protein less those in the other groups.

Figure 3: While the scientists recorded sign. increases in muscle thickness in the subjects' vastus intermedius, these changes, however, were - within statistical margins - identical for all trials (Reidy 2016b).

Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in either of the main research outcomes, i.e. the lean mass (DXA data), vastus lateralis myofiber-type-specific cross-sectional-area, satellite cell content and myonuclear addition, which were assessed pre and post-resistance training. A closer analysis of the data reveals:

• 

  Table 2: Total energy and macronutrient intake during the study (from Reidy 2016b, which is the large clinical of which the study at hand is a subset)

  the soy-blend with its fast-to-slow digesting mix of 25% soy protein isolate, 25% whey protein isolate, and 50% sodium caseinate yielded the most sign. gains in lean body mass (p = 0.057 for PB), 
• adding protein, in general, i.e. pooling the results from PB and WP to PRO, increased the statistical sign. of the lean mass benefit to p = 0.050 (no sign. difference to MPB, still),
• despite the previously hinted at advantage of the blend, significant inter-group differences for soy-blend vs. whey were not observed for any of the parameters

Very similar observations had been made in the 2016(b) paper on this large-scale clinical trial, in which the scientists didn't find significant treatment effects (see TRT in Figure 4) of either of the protein supplements on DXA measures increases in lean body mass or lean arm mass.

Figure 4: Upon closer scrutiny, the lean mass data reveals a non-sign. advantage for the protein blend (Reidy 2016b).

Against that background, it will probably not surprise you that, again on a treatment basis (no pooling of the two protein groups), no differences were reported for the separately measured leg muscle hypertrophy and vastus lateralis myofiber-type-specific cross-sectional-area (P<0.05 | not shown in any figure) in the latest follow-up (Reidy 2017).

But what about the "more helps more" studies by Antonio et al.? I have to admit that I cannot fully explain why Jose Antonio and colleagues saw much more significant increases in muscle gains in their often-cited study. It could be that this is a methodological issue Reidy et al. address in their discussion of the results with the increases in total lean mass measured by DXA being sign. more pronounced than the actual changes in muscle cross-sectional area (compare box in the bottom line of this article), which were not measured in the 2014 study by Antonio et al. On the other hand, it is likewise possible that it's simply a question of the amount of protein that's supplemented. In the three-year-old study that was enough to bump the subject's protein intake to 4.4g/kg body weight. Anyway... Antonio's observations do not refute the conclusion that a single protein shake won't do the muscle-building magic you're promised on the labels of the bazillion of different protein products on the market.

Similarly, no treatment effects, i.e. effects due to a certain protein powder, were detected for the albeit highly significant training-induced changes in myosin heavy chain I and II myofiber satellite cell content and myonuclei content (P<0.05).

Figure 5: Change in the relative frequency of larger vastus lateralis MHC II myofibers. Protein blend (PB) or whey protein (WP) or maltodextrin placebo (MDP). Data are mean ± SEM. TRT, treatment (Reidy 2017).

Only when the scientists pooled the results of the two protein groups, they found a non-significant and very modest effect of protein supplementation on the increase in MHC I satellite cell content, isokinetic torque and a slight expansion of a greater proportion of larger MHC II fibers over placebo after resistance exercise training - a "benefit" that is nothing like those you'd expect if you read the grandiose promises in the shiny advertisements of the supplement industry.

Brainwashed by shiny ads, people tend to overesti-mate the benefits of protein supps: Reidy et al. make a valid point, when they write that "[c]ontrary to popu-lar dogma, it is not unusual to observe no effect of protein supplements, in particular, whey protein, over placebo on lean mass or myofiber CSA." The authors further point out that they "are aware of only 3 studies demonstra-ting greater changes in vastus lateralis myofiber CSA and 2 studies with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) comparing protein versus carbohydrate placebo supp-lementation during RET" (Redy 2017). Similarly dis-appointing are the results of most studies that investiga-ted the vastus lateralis myofi-ber CSA in protein supple-mented subjects on protein-adequate diets. And that's no leg-specific result, as Reidy et al. highlight: "Studies utili-zing MRI of the biceps or la-tissimus dorsi and ultrasound of the thigh muscles have clearly shown the same pattern" (Reidy 2017). A simple measuring tape may thus indeed yield more relevant results than DEXA.

So what does all that tell me? Well, I guess the first thing you have to admit to yourself is that you're expecting whey... ah, I mean, way too much from your protein powder. As Reidy et al. point out "[p]rotein supplementation during resistance training has [only] a modest effect on whole body lean mass as compared to exercise training without protein supplementation" - especially if you have a relatively high (1.2g/kg or more) baseline protein intake.

Furthermore, the study, or rather the set of papers on this uniquely large clinical trial, should remind you of the potential benefits of protein blends. Why? Well, previous studies suggest that the combination of fast and slow proteins will provide for a more sustained and eventually more anabolic state of hyperamino-acidemia compared to fast-digesting proteins like whey protein isolate, alone. That this benefit was only small in the study at hand could be a mere result of the fact that a truly slow digesting source was missing from the protein blend (sodium caseinate contains no intact micelles and is digested much faster than micellar casein).

All that doesn't render protein supplements useless, but it emphasizes that protein is mostly the fuel for hypertrophy - not more, but also not less. Its provision can increase the storage of muscle protein but it will, as the large-scale clinical trial at hand has shown quite conclusively, not "enhance resistance exercise-induced increases in myofiber hypertrophy, satellite cell content or myonuclear addition in young healthy men" (Reidy 2017), significantly. Is that surprising? Well at least for the structural parameters it isn't as discussed in the "Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle" (see conclusion + article overview) the latter are not directly affected by mTOR and other signaling proteins an increased protein intake would affect. And if you still believed that the post-workout shake of yours would add another inch to your biceps every two weeks, you cannot be helped, anyway | Comment!

References:

• Antonio, Jose, et al. "The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 11.1 (2014): 19.
• Reidy, Paul T., et al. "Protein supplementation has minimal effects on muscle adaptations during resistance exercise training in young men: A double-blind randomized clinical trial." The Journal of nutrition 146.9 (2016a): 1660-1669.
• Reidy, Paul T., and Blake B. Rasmussen. "Role of ingested amino acids and protein in the promotion of resistance exercise–induced muscle protein anabolism." The Journal of nutrition (2016b): jn203208.
• Reidy, Paul T., et al. "Protein Supplementation Does Not Affect Myogenic Adaptations to Resistance Training." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (2017).

18% Increased Protein Breakdown W/ 20g of Egg Protein Before Workout - Reason Enough for Avoiding Pre-Workout Protein Supps? Rational & Experimental Counter-Evidence

Protein before workouts "accelerates protein catabolism"? That sounds worse than it actually is (photo BSN).

Most of you will probably consume a protein shake after their workout. Probably whey, if you've read all SuppVersity articles, maybe 25g whey + 10g casein (learn why), or something like that. But what do you do before your workouts? Do you consume a protein shake 60-90 minutes before your workout? If so, you will be shocked about the conclusion of a recent study from the Tokyo University of Agriculture which says: "[...]  pre-exercise protein supplementation taken in excess may accelerate protein catabolism" (Hasegawa. 2014).

But is it actually possible that consuming more protein (albeit at the wrong time) will have a negative impact on your gains?

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Less Fat, More Muscle!

Before we can answer this important question it is necessary to take a look at the actual design of the randomized cross-over study.

Figure 1: Graphical overview of the experimental protocol (Hasegawa. 2014)

The participants, six healthy male university students [21.2 (±0.3) years, 173.6 (±2.8) cm, and 62.7 (±2.8)kg] with no allergies to egg white or soy, the two protein sources the effects of which the researchers initially wanted to compare, underwent three 8-day testing periods with an exercise at the end (the 8-day intervals were separated by at least seven days).

"Each  testing period began on Day-1 and ended the meat-free diet  consisting of grains, beans, and milk, and 24- hour urine sample collection on Day-8 (Figure 1). Participants were allocated into  one of three groups; egg white protein (E), soy protein (S), and mineral water control (C) group with no additive, and all were carried out this study protocol three times, and asked not to change their lifestyle behaviors." (Hasegawa. 2014). 

The result of this study should remind you of the "Protein-Wheysting" Article | more is not always better!

On Day-5, the day of the workout, the  participants arrived at the  laboratory at 8:00 AM, and had a breakfast consisting of a rice ball (energy, 355 kcal; protein, 6.7 g; carbohydrate, 78.1 g). At 9:30 AM, after the baseline blood sample collection and perceived muscle soreness (MS) measurements, the subjects received one of the three test beverages which contained

• 20 g of egg protein,
• 20g of soy protein, or
• an isoenergetic placebo without protein

that had been dissolved in 200ml of mineral water. 90 minutes later, at 11:00 AM, the previously untrained participants started a resistance training protocol that involved seated rows, flys, leg extensions, and leg presses.

The exercises were performed for three sets of 10 repetitions at ~80% of a predetermined 1-RM with one min rest between sets and two minutes between each exercise.

Figure 2: no significant difference in perceived fatique, but a significant reduction in peak muscle soreness in the soy (grey blocks) vs. the control (white triangles) group (Hasegawa. 2014).

As you can see in Figure 2, the initially mentioned negative effects of the protein supplement were not the only significant inter-trial differences the scientists observed; and what's more, the significantly decreased muscle soreness in response to both protein powders (the peak levels differed statistically significantly only for control vs. soy) stands in stark contrast the mainstream interpretation of protein breakdown (which is "protein breakdown = muscle loss").

How is that possible? Increased protein breakdown and reduced muscle soreness?

So, here we are with an obvious contradiction between the reduced muscle soreness (Figure 2) and the scientists claim that "pre-exercise protein supplementation taken in excess may accelerate protein catabolism" (Hasegawa. 2014)... you already guessed it: The contradiction depends on the false assumption that "protein catabolism" means "catabolism of muscle protein", which is not generally the case and in this specific case certainly wrong.

Figure 3: Urinary nitrogen excretion measured for 72h after the workout (Hasegawa. 2014)

The process we are talking about here is thus most likely not an increase in "mucle catabolism" but rather about the absence of a reduction in protein wasting, i.e a "protein sparing" mechanism that won't be triggered if there is plenty of protein around during the workout.

"So you're saying we don't have to worry?" Basically this is the message of today's SuppVersity article, yes. The notion that the increased amount of nitrogen the scientists measured in their subjects urine is the end product of muscle protein breakdown is highly questionable. It's more likely that the provision of extra protein makes the initiation of protein sparing mechanisms which would otherwise reduce the nitrogen excretion in the control group superfluous - I mean, look at Figure 3 again: Compared to Day 4 (i.e. baseline before workout), the levels remain stable in both protein supplementation groups.

If your pre-workout protein makes you hypo, stop using it or buffer the drop in blood sugar w/ CHO | learn why

You still have doubts!? Well, I have evidence to support my conclusion. Wycherley et al. (2010), for example, were able to show that their dieting subjects saw the same improvements in body composition no matter whether they consumed their protein + carbohydrate beverage (likewise 20g of protein) before or after their resistance training workouts. Rasmussen et al. (2000) report significant increases in muscle protein anabolism after resistance training with pre-workout EAA supplementation. And a protein + carbohydrate supplement reduced (not increased) the muscle damage (as evidenced by 33% reduced increase in myoglobin) in some, but not all subjects in a resistance training study by Baty et al. (7 free weight ex; 3 sets x8 reps to failure | Baty. 2007).

All in all, it does therefore not appear to be indicated to change your current supplementation practice (if you are consuming protein before your workouts)... well, unless you feel wiped out, whenever you consume protein before your workout. In that case, the protein induced increase in insulin is probably sending you right down the hypoglycemia alley. In view of given negative effects on your exercise performance and the touted increases in obesity risk, this is something you should try to avoid by either buffering the insulin spike with carbs or simply avoiding the ingestion of fast digesting protein supplements before your workouts | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Baty, Jacob J., et al. "The effect of a carbohydrate and protein supplement on resistance exercise performance, hormonal response, and muscle damage." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 21.2 (2007): 321-329.
• Hasegawa, Yuko, et al. "Effect of Egg White Protein Supplementation Prior to Acute Resistance Training on Muscle Damage Indices in Untrained Japanese Men." Monten. J. Sports Sci. Med. 3 (2014) 2: 5–12.
• Rasmussen, Blake B., et al. "An oral essential amino acid-carbohydrate supplement enhances muscle protein anabolism after resistance exercise." Journal of Applied Physiology 88.2 (2000): 386-392.
• Wycherley, Thomas Philip, et al. "Timing of protein ingestion relative to resistance exercise training does not influence body composition, energy expenditure, glycaemic control or cardiometabolic risk factors in a hypocaloric, high protein diet in patients with type 2 diabetes." Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 12.12 (2010): 1097-1105.

Protein Blends, Not Isolates Promote Maximal Skeletal Muscle Protein Retention(!) - It's Not About How Much You Pump into the Muscle, It's About How Much You Retain

Scientific evidence suggests: There is not one optimal protein to build muscle - it's the mix of fast to slow proteins that's key.

For someone like yourself, who's making sure to get his daily dose of SuppVersity Science News, the results Reidy et al. present in their latest paper in the Journal of Applied Physiology can hardly be surprising. I have, after all, written about the superiority of whey + casein blends as potential muscle builders only recently ("When Whey & Casein Unite in the Spirit of True Physique Improvements, BCAAs & Glutamine Better Shut the F*** Up"  | (re-)read the article). It was thus only to be expected that a study in which the scientists from the University of Texas Medical Branch compared the effects of the prolonged hyperaminoacidemia that's associated with the ingestion of a blend of plant (25% soy) and dairy (50% casein, 25% whey) proteins (with varying digestion rates) to that of a pure rapidly digested whey would yield a definite points win for the "time-released" formula.

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

Cod protein for recovery

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

5x More Than FDA Allows

The reasons why it's still well worth taking a closer look at the study results are (a) the fact that the f**** up supplement industry is still trying to tell you that protein blends would be inferior to overpriced isolates and (b) the educative value of the post-workout + post-supplementation serum amino acid profiles Reidy et al. observed the 16 healthy, young subjects (age range: 19 –30 yr) who participated in their double-blind, randomized clinical trial (with body fat levels of >24% those were certainly no physical culturists, though ;-)

Figure 1: Graphical overview of the study design (Reidy. 2014)

As you can see in Figure 1 the study protocol involved a standardized resistance training session in the course of which the subjects who had been kept on a diet containing 20% protein, 60% carbohydrate, and 20% fat at 12 kcal/kg for 72h, performed leg extensions on a Cybex-VR2 (Medway, MA), i.e. 8 sets of 10 repetitions at 55% (set 1), 60% (set 2), 65% (set 3), and 70% (sets 4 – 8) of the participants previously determined 1 RM with 3-min rest between sets, before they consumed the protein beverages (Whey or Blend) exactly 1 h postexercise.

Figure 2: Net phenylalanine enrichment (left) and inward and outward transport (right)

The ingestion of the beverages of which the blend and the whey protein contained of 20.1 g total protein (providing 1.9 g leucine, 1.0 g phenylalanine, 1.3 g valine, and 9.0 g EAA; 50% protein from sodium caseinate, 25% protein from whey protein isolate, and 25% protein from soy protein isolate) and 17.3 g of protein (providing 1.9 g leucine, 0.6 g phenylalanine, 1.1 g valine, and 8.7 g EAA; 100% whey protein isolate), respectively, lead to significant increases in amino acid transporter activity (2/SLC38A2, proton-assisted amino acid transporter 1/SLC36A1, cationic amino acid transporter 1/SLC7A1).

"However, the ingestion of the protein blend resulted in a prolonged and positive net phenylalanine balance during postexercise recovery compared with whey protein (P 0.05)." (Reidy)

In view of identical postexercise myofibrillar protein synthesis in both groups this difference may appear negligible. If you've been following my articles about the often oversimplified protein synthesis and increases in skeletal muscle mass, you should be aware that net retention and not fractional synthesis is the term you have to look for, when you're analyzing corresponding studies.

Bolus ingestion could be a superior alternative: In view of the fact that the advantage of protein blends is directly related to their ability to trigger sustained increases of the level of amino acids in the blood, the same can be achieved by the ingestion of whey protein at regular intervals - e.g. at least every 2 hours. Needless to say that this is not just more expensive, but also less practical than the 20-40g of a protein blend many of you are probably already consuming right after their workouts.

Bottom line: I am still very hesitant to suggest buying a blend with significant amounts of soy in it, when egg proteins should do a similarly beneficial job as a "filler" that keeps the amino acids (AA) levels elevated when the influx of AAs from whey is beginning to seize and the slow digesting casein protein (in the study at hand, we had regular sodium caseinate, which is actually faster digesting than micellar casein) are not yet fully digested.

In general, however, the study at hand clearly supports the notion that protein blends that are designed to provide a sustained elevation of all essential amino acids in the blood (not just BCAAs, learn why) will induce a superior growth response. Whether the same is true if we compare the ingestion of a single protein blend shake to the repeated (ev. 2h) ingestion of 20g of whey protein, will yet have to be elucidated in future studies.

Reference: 

• Reidy, Paul T., et al. "Soy-dairy protein blend and whey protein ingestion after resistance exercise increases amino acid transport and transporter expression in human skeletal muscle." Journal of Applied Physiology 116.11 (2014): 1353-1364.

Study Finds 17x Elevated Estrogen, High Progesterone + Reduced DHEA Levels in 65% of Ecdysteroid, Tribulus, Phytoestrogen, Phytosterol and / or Soy Protein Users!

Image 1 (Oliver Knöbel aka "Olivia Jones"): Not sure, but maybe the famous German drag artist Oilver Knöbel  aka "Olivia Jones" would be willing to buy some of your "all natural ergogenics"?

Tekin and Kravitz estimate the number of currently available "nutritional supplements" to be 30,000+ and if you want my personal estimate, roughly 30 of those are useful (Tekin. 2012). And while many of the other 29,970 supplements are often just dispensable, some are downright harmful or, as we have recently seen for alpha lipoic acid and zinc only beneficial for a certain, often sick, obese and diabetic part of the population (see "You are better of without alpha lipoic acid" and "Zinc supplements may cause insulin resistance & diabetes") and can - if taken in high doses or for long periods of time - become downright harmful for active physical culturists like you and me. The data Paolo Borrione and his colleagues from the Department of Health Sciences at the University of Rome present in a recently published paper does now confirm that ALA and zinc are probably still the most benign among the "potent ergogenics" and "all natural", "plant-derived nutritional supplements" that are specifically marketed to fitness enthusiasts all around the globe (Borrione. 2012).

Believe it or not: "Natural" and "non-hormonal" can be worse than synthetic and hormonal

Image 2: In view of the fact that ecdysteroids are meant to turn the guy on the left into the nasty bastard on the right, the guys in this study should be happy that they got away with hormonal imbalances ;-)

In their peer-reviewed observational pilot-study (I am already looking forward to the follow up ;-) the scientists queried 740 trained subjects (420 body builders, 70 cyclists, and 250 fitness athletes) over a 6-months period on their use of "commercially available plant-derived nutritional supplements", which contained any or several of the following ingredients

• ecdysteroids, 
• phytoestrogens, 
• phytosterols and/or
• tribulus terrestris

To my surprise only 26 of those 740 experienced trainees (all subjects have been training regularly for at least 1 year, 1–2 hours per day, 3–6 days per week) declared that they were currently using respective products, with

• In defense of at least some of the ingredients mentioned in this list to the left, it should be mentioned that it is not clear, if the observed effects were due to a single component of the supplements, due to several of the ingredients of an individual product or the highly undesirable and based on studies on isolated compounds non-predictable interactions. Personally, I would bet money that all three of these were involved, though.
  6 subjects consuming products that contained Caffeine, Citrus A., Zingiber, Guggul, Cacao, Naringine and Bioperine. 
• 6 subsect consuming products based on 5-Methyl-7Methoxyisoflavone, 7-Iso- propoxyisoflavone, 20-Hydroxyecdysone, Secretagogues, Triboxybol, Saw Palmetto extract, Beta Sitosterol, Pygeum extract, Guarana extract and Cordyceps extract. 
• 4 subjects consuming different dosages of a commercially available product containing Rhaponticum Carthamoides extract and (in one case) Ajuga Turkestanica and Rhaponticum Carthamoides root extract

for 6-12 months. The rest got at least a daily dose of phytoestrogens from soy protein products, some of which were enriched with Muira Puama and/or Guta Kola extracts - with highly detrimental consequences on the endocrine milieu for 15 (65%) of them.

Figure 1: Progesterone (ng/ml), estrogen (pg/ml) and DHEA (ng/ml) levels in users vs. non-users of "plant-derived nutritional supplements"; the bars for lower and upper indicate the lower and upper limit of the normal range, the figures on top of the blue bars are relative to the group average of the non-users (based on Borrione. 2012)

If your brain is not already malfunctioning due to too many "all natural ergogenics", it should be plain obvious that neither the 16x increase in estrogen, nor the 3x increase in progesterone are something you would be willing to pay money for. And that goes irrespective of whether you are a man or a women. After all,  these profound "hormonal alterations" (esp. the hyperestrogenism) could, as the scientists point out, lead to "severe health problems" such as

• gynecomastia, hypogonadism and reduced fertility in men, and 
• macromastia, enlarged uterus, menstrual irregularities and breast cancer in women.

In addition, hyperestrogenism represents a major risk factor for the female and male breast cancer (Heinig. 2002; Martin. 2003; Cederroth. 2010).

Taking DHEA or an "all natural" aromatase inhibitor will only exasperate the mess!

Image 2: Actually this post only confirms what I have been written in my previous post on "hormone optimization made simple and cheap". Avoiding all the natural and unnatural hormonal disruptors is the less expensive and healthiest way to optimize your endocrine system.

And while you could try to counter the reduced DHEA levels and the increase in estrogen by simply swallowing another pill (or a whole "stack"), I would suggest you better avoid all those totally natural, but by no means harmless test- or whatever boosters and suppressors of which Paolo Borrione et al. rightly state that they "have not been studied for long-term safety".

Contrary to the users in Berrione's study, of whom 45% did not even know all of the substances on the label of their supplement of choice you are now aware that the phytoestrogens, vegetal sterols and ecdysteroids are not simply not worth their money, they are more importantly not worth your health and should, just like the soy protein, which happens to be the one supplement that was on the list of every subject with abnormally elevated estrogen levels(!) never make it onto your supplement shopping list.

References:

1. Borrione P, Rizzo M, Quaranta F, Ciminelli E, Fagnani F, Parisi A, Pigozzi F. Consumption and biochemical impact of commercially available plant-derived nutritional supplements. An observational pilot-study on recreational athletes. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2012 Jun 19;9(1):28.
2. Cederroth CR, Auger J, Zimmermann C, Eustache F, Nef S: Soy, phyto-oestrogens and male reproductive function: a review. Int J Androl 2010, 33:304–316
3. Heinig J, Jackisch C, Rody A, Koch O, Buechter D, Schneider HP: Clinical management of breast concer in males: a report of four cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002, 102:67–73.
4. Martin RM, Lin CJ, Nishi MY, Billerbeck AE, Latronico AC, Russell DW, Mendonca BB: Familial hyperestrogenism in both sexes: clinical, hormonal, and molecular studies of two siblings. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003, 88:3027–3034.
5. Tekin KA, Kravitz L: The growing trend of ergogenic drugs and supplements. ACSM’s Health Fitness J 2004, 8:15–18.

The Soy Formula: Pregnant or Lactating Mother + Soy = Metabolically Deranged Male Offspring

Image 1: Newsweek title from the
year 2000 - "Fat for Life?"; did his
mother love her soy protein more
than her son's health?

Those of you who listened to my dissertations on yesterday's fourth installment of the Amino Acid Series on Carl Lenore's Super Human Radio will probably remember the lack of carnitine in the not-yet-enriched soy based baby-formula of the late 1970s. Now, a recently published rodent study suggests that the negative effects of soy may well begin before the offspring is even born: Exposure of pregnant and lactating rats to a soy (vs. a casein) based diet "increased the presence of the characteristics of the metabolic syndrome in the offspring" (Jahan-mihan. 2011).

In the course of their study, the results which was published in the latest issue of the British Journal of Nutrition, the scientists randomly assigned pregnant rats (at day 3 of gestation) to one out of two calorically identical diets, which different only with regard to the source of their protein content. While half of the rats were fed a soy based formula, the other half received a casein based diet.

Figure 1: Amino acid composition of the cystein- (C) and cystein+methionine (S) fortified (indicated by the asterisk) casein (C) and soy-based (S) diets rat dams and their offspring were fed in the course of pregnancy and lactation and weening, respectively (data adapted from Jahan-mihan. 2011).

The whole study consisted of two almost identical test series, which lasted 9 (Exp. 1) and 15 weeks (Exp. 2) and provided unambiguously detrimental results for the male pups :

In Expt 1, pups born to S-fed dams had higher fasting blood glucose (BG), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at week 4, higher blood glucose (BG) response to a glucose administration (P,0·001) and higher body weight (BW) at week 8 (P,0·05). In Expt 2, consumption of the S diet throughout gestation and lactation resulted in higher BW (P,0·05), DBP (P,0·005) and SBP (P,0·005) in the offspring. They also had higher homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; P,0·05) and plasma homocysteine (P,0·05) at weaning, higher fasting BG and glucose response to glucose administration (P,0·005) at week 12 and higher HOMA-IR (P,0·01) at week 15.

It goes without saying that in absence of other variables, either the amino acid composition or the genistein, daidzein and glycitein content of the soy diet must have been responsible for the metabolic priming towards high blood pressure, obesity and diabetes.

Figure 2: Relative elevation of glucose, insulin, HOMA-IR (marker of insulin resistance) and corticosteroids (stress hormones) in offspring of soy-fed rats compared to pups of casein-fed mothers at different time-points in their lives (data adapted from Jahan-mihan. 2011).

In that it is worth mentioning that the extension of the duration of the soy feeding from gestation in experiment 1 to gestation + lactation in experiment "resulted in a more robust effect of the S diet on BW, body composition and glucose metabolism in the offspring". These results contradict the hypothesis "that offspring weaned to similar diets as their mothers will adapt more appropriately to their postnatal environment"; an observation a cynic may comment with the words: 'I guess, they did not have enough time for genetic adaption'.

As far as the underlying reasons for these detrimental effects of a soy-based pregnancy and lactation diet go, the scientists argue that bioactive peptides such as valine–proline–proline and isoleucine–proline–proline, which are present in casein, but are not contained in soy proteins, may play a factor. On the other hand, Jahan-mihan et al. discount the isoflavone content of the soy protein (36.1, 31.3 and 4.4µg/g for Genistein, daidzein and glycitein, respectively) as potential cause of the metabolic derangement, because "the genistein content of the S diet was 36 µg/g of the diets, well below that reported (250 mg/g diet) in the maternal diet to affect epigenetic and phenotypic changes in mice". The latter, however, makes me question the reasons, the researchers had to chose exclusively male pubs in their study!? What if not the phytoestrogens in soy would whack up the male pups endocrine system? Be that as it may, if you are a mother to be, you better not make soy protein your no.1 source of dietary protein, in order not to set your children up for high blood pressure, obesity and diabetes in their later lives.

Leguminous Fish Poison: Soy Saponins Injure Intestinal Structure of Breeding Fish.

Image 1: Soybean saponins turn out
to be an effective fish poison.
Bottom line: No Soy for Your Koi!

As a "student" of the SuppVersity, your source for nutrition and exercise science on the Internet, you already know about the "Soy Ploy". Probably, you are also aware that despite deliberately avoiding the consumption of soy products, many of you are exposed to meat and fish which has been raised on a soy-based chow. As questionable as the practice of feeding animals plants they naturally would not consume may be, the provision of soy-based diets to all sorts of livestock is still considered a highly economical way of fattening up fatstock. A recent study (Chen. 2011) from the Ocean University of China could however change this perspective and persuade fish farmers to use a more natural foodstuff for their breed.

Chen et al. found that a diet containing more than 3.2g/kg saponins damaged the gut lining of the fish and lead to a significant decrease in weight gain and thus economic damage, which (unfortunately) appears to be the only reason for the food industry to reconsider feeding practices:

High dietary saponins level (6.4 g saponins kg^-1 diet) significantly depressed the weight gain and FER of flounder at both day 28 and 56. The weight gain of fish fed the diet with 3.2 g sapoins kg^-1 diet (Diet 3), however, was significantly depressed at day 28, while no significant difference was observed at day 56 compared with the control diet. The integrity of histological structure in the distal intestine was gradually impaired as soybean saponins levels increased. 

The inverse relationship between saponin content and the impairment of the histological structure in the distal intestine should make you (re-)think your voluntary or involuntary soy consumption - especially in view of the fact that different brands of soy protein contain 3-25g/kg and whole soy beans poison you with a whopping 56g/kg saponins (cf. Fenwick. 1980).